R. v. Keough (J.A.), (2011) 512 A.R. 1 (QB)

R. v. Keough (J.A.) (2011), 512 A.R. 1 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] A.R. TBEd. MY.066

Her Majesty The Queen v. Jason Andrew Keough (090409517Q2; 2011 ABQB 312)

Indexed As: R. v. Keough (J.A.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Manderscheid, J.

May 6, 2011.

Summary:

The accused was charged with two counts of possession of child pornography, two counts of making child pornography, engaging in voyeurism, copying voyeuristic materials and touching a young person for a sexual purpose while being in a position of trust or authority.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported (2010), 501 A.R. 26, found the accused guilty of two counts of possession of child pornography, engaging in voyeurism and copying voyeuristic materials. The accused was acquitted on the two counts of making child pornography and touching a young person for a sexual purpose.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench sentenced the accused to a total sentence of 27 months' imprisonment, comprised of nine months' imprisonment for each possession of child pornography (consecutive), nine months' imprisonment for each voyeurism count (concurrent to each other, but consecutive to the child pornography sentences). The court also made a DNA sample order, a 10 year registration order under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, a 10 year prohibition respecting being in a position of trust or authority respecting children under age 16 and forfeiture of all items seized from the accused's home.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.9

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Sexual offences against children (incl. child pornography) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5874 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5874

Sentence - Manufacture, distribution or possession of obscene matter (incl. child pornography) - The accused was convicted of two counts of possession of child pornography, engaging in voyeurism and copying voyeuristic materials - The accused, a youth worker/counsellor, allowed young people to use his spare bedroom for consensual sex - In separate instances, 15 and 16 year old girls had consensual sex with their boyfriends knowing that their activity was being recorded with a video camera - In both instances, the girls expected their activities to remain private (legal private use materials) - In both cases, the boyfriends provided the tapes to the accused probably in exchange for some consideration - Respecting the voyeurism counts, an 18 year old girl had consensual sex with her friend without knowing that the accused and her friend were surreptitiously videotaping the activity - The accused subsequently made copies and paid the friend $200 - The accused was a facilitator or, at its worst, a predator - The Crown sought a 15-18 month total sentence - The accused sought a 45-90 day total sentence, to be served intermittently - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench sentenced the accused to a total sentence of 27 months' imprisonment, comprised of nine months' imprisonment for each possession of child pornography (consecutive), nine months' imprisonment for each voyeurism count (concurrent to each other, but consecutive to the child pornography sentences) - Section 718.01 of the Criminal Code made denunciation and deterrence the primary consideration for child pornography offences - Different considerations applied where the illegal possession of private use materials (legal if kept private) was involved rather than materials that were illegal from the outset - The accused was not a passive recipient of the recordings; he was actively involved in the unauthorized intrusions into the girls' private sexuality - The accused did not testify - No pre-sentence report was prepared - There was no evidence of remorse, acceptance of responsibility or treatment or therapy - Mitigating factors included the lack of a criminal record and that possession was for the accused's personal use (no evidence of any intention to distribute them).

Criminal Law - Topic 5924.2

Sentence - Voyeurism - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5874 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v . Weinheimer (J.M.) (2007 ), 431 A.R. 126; 2007 ABPC 349, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Kwok (A.), [2007] O.T.C. 291; 72 W.C.B.(2d) 533; 2007 CanLII 2942 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Johnston, 2009 ONCJ 628, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Hutchings, 2010 ONCJ 214, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Gauthier (J.S.) (2008), 425 A.R. 267; 418 W.A.C. 267; 2008 ABCA 39, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Hammond (C.M.) (2009), 469 A.R. 317; 470 W.A.C. 317; 2009 ABCA 415, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Johnston (H.E.) (2010), 299 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 43; 926 A.P.R. 43; 2010 NLTD(G) 117, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. J.L.M.A. (2010), 499 A.R. 1; 514 W.A.C. 1; 264 C.C.C.(3d) 134; 2010 ABCA 363, refd to. [paras. 15, 46].

R. v. Proulx (D.) (2010), 250 Man.R.(2d) 254; 2010 MBQB 58, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. P.M. (2002), 155 O.A.C. 242; 53 W.C.B.(2d) 408 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Slapak (J.R.) (2010), 495 A.R. 163; 2010 ABPC 177, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Peterson (R.W.) (2006), 402 A.R. 372; 2006 ABPC 177, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. L.W., 2008 BCPC 281, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. H.T. (2010), 250 Man.R.(2d) 86; 2010 MBPC 8, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Proulx (D.) (2009), 237 Man.R.(2d) 313; 2009 MBPC 13, revd. (2010), 250 Man.R.(2d) 254; 2010 MBQB 58, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Kostas (2008), 77 W.C.B.(2d) 269; 2008 ONCJ 224, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Decker (D.L.) (2008), 268 N.S.R.(2d) 254; 857 A.P.R. 254; 2008 NSPC 43, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. S.M., 2010 ONCJ 347, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. B.W.P.; R. v. B.V.N., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 941; 350 N.R. 1; 227 B.C.A.C. 1; 374 W.A.C. 1; 205 Man.R.(2d) 282; 375 W.A.C. 282; 2006 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Latimer (R.W.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3; 264 N.R. 99; 203 Sask.R. 1; 240 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. B.C.M. (2008), 259 B.C.A.C. 222; 436 W.A.C. 222; 2008 BCCA 365, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. B.S.M. (2011), 502 A.R. 253; 517 W.A.C. 253; 2011 ABCA 105, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Innerebner (T.L.) (2010), 496 A.R. 196; 2010 ABQB 188, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. J.M.F. (1982), 37 A.R. 273; 20 Alta. L.R.(2d) 90; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 367 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Erwin (B.R.) (2002), 317 A.R. 379; 284 W.A.C. 379; 2002 ABCA 210, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. P.J.B. (2010), 474 A.R. 161; 479 W.A.C. 161; 2010 ABCA 49, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Parise (2002), 54 W.C.B.(2d) 442 (Ont. C.J.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Mallett (D.), [2005] O.T.C. 792; 66 W.C.B.(2d) 725 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Hunt (W.E.) (2002), 303 A.R. 240; 273 W.A.C. 240; 2002 ABCA 155, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Hewlett (J.J.) (2002), 312 A.R. 165; 281 W.A.C. 165; 2002 ABCA 179, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. M.L.F. (2005), 376 A.R. 128; 360 W.A.C. 128; 2005 ABCA 423, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. L.W. (2006), 208 O.A.C. 42; 206 C.C.C.(3d) 543 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Schultz (B.J.) (2008), 450 A.R. 37; 2008 ABQB 679, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. D.D. (2007), 229 O.A.C. 20; 86 O.R.(3d) 721; 2007 ONCA 619, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Bono (A.), [2008] O.T.C. Uned. L06; 2008 CanLII 51780 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Schneider (N.) (2008), 77 W.C.B.(2d) 573; 2008 ONCJ 250, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Cuttell, 2010 ONCJ 139, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Oliver, [2002] E.W.J. No. 5441 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Missions (W.D.) (2005), 232 N.S.R.(2d) 329; 737 A.P.R. 329; 2005 NSCA 82, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. V.H. (2008), 77 W.C.B.(2d) 332; 2008 YKTC 21, refd to. [para. 102].

R.L. v. R., [2009] R.J.Q. 699; 2009 QCCA 546, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. T.L.B. (2007), 409 A.R. 40; 402 W.A.C. 40; 2007 ABCA 61, leave to appeal denied (2007), 375 N.R. 391; 433 A.R. 399; 429 W.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 114].

R.v. N.R.P., [2010] A.R. Uned. 861; 2010 ABPC 341, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Loring (J.H.), [2001] B.C.T.C. Uned. 518; 54 W.C.B.(2d) 617; 2001 BCSC 200, refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. Garbett (2008), 56 C.R.(6th) 91; 2008 ONCJ 97, refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. Gardiner, 2009 BCPC 358, refd to. [para. 147].

R. v. Solowan (K.S.T.), [2008] 3 S.C.R. 309; 381 N.R. 191; 261 B.C.A.C. 27; 440 W.A.C. 27; 2008 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 155].

R. v. J.H. (1999), 118 O.A.C. 354; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 338 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 167].

R. v. F.G. (2011), 308 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 59; 958 A.P.R. 59 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 177].

R. v. Laskaris, 2008 BCPC 130, refd to. [para. 182].

R. v. J.H.N., 2010 BCPC 155, refd to. [para. 184].

R. v. Grice, 2008 ONCJ 476, refd to. [para. 186].

R. v. Gomboc (D.J.), [2010] 3 S.C.R. 211; 408 N.R. 1; 490 A.R. 327; 497 W.A.C. 327; 2010 SCC 55, refd to. [para. 189].

R. v. Wharry (W.E.) (2008), 437 A.R. 148; 433 W.A.C. 148; 2008 ABCA 293, refd to. [para. 247].

R. v. Abrosimo (B.E.) (2007), 245 B.C.A.C. 180; 405 W.A.C. 180; 225 C.C.C.(3d) 253; 2007 BCCA 406, refd to. [para. 247].

R. v. R.K.A. (2006), 384 A.R. 222; 367 W.A.C. 222; 208 C.C.C.(3d) 74; 2006 ABCA 82, refd to. [para. 256].

R. v. Robinson (E.) (2002), 159 O.A.C. 286; 54 W.C.B.(2d) 501 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 259].

R. v. R.M.G. (2001), 51 W.C.B.(2d) 322 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 262].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Department of Justice, Voyeurism as a Criminal Offence: A Consultation Paper (2002), generally [para. 16].

Canada, Statistics Canada, Incident Based Crime Statistics - Results, generally [para. 16].

Key Child Protection Reforms and Voyeurism Offences to Come into Effect - Press Release Article (October 26, 2005), generally [para. 16].

Ruby, Clayton C., Sentencing (4th Ed. 1994), pp. 44, 45 [para. 55].

Counsel:

Diane J. Hollinshead, for the Crown;

Anna Konye (Pringle MacDonald & Bottos), for the accused.

This matter was heard on January 24, 2011, before Manderscheid, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment orally on May 6, 2011.